DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Iowa’s high court refused on Friday to restore a law that would have severely restricted abortion, thereby preserving the legality of the procedure in the state. The decision serves as a setback for Republican Governor Kim Reynolds and ensures that Iowa remains distinct from other conservative states with stringent abortion regulations.
In a rare 3-3 ruling, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld a district court’s 2019 decision that had halted the implementation of the law. This recent ruling comes approximately a year after both the state court and the U.S. Supreme Court declared that women do not possess an inherent constitutional right to abortion.
The blocked legislation sought to ban abortions once cardiac activity could be detected, typically occurring at around six weeks of pregnancy when many women are still unaware of their condition. Exceptions within the law were made for medical emergencies, cases of rape and incest, as well as fetal abnormalities.
Justice Thomas Waterman, writing on behalf of the three justices who rejected the state’s plea to reinstate the law, explained that fulfilling that request would entail circumventing the legislative process, altering the court’s standards for reviewing laws, and negating an injunction imposed by a lower court that had halted the law’s enforcement.
“In our opinion, it would be judicial legislation to revive a statute that was effectively defunct upon enactment and has been under injunction for four years, only to put it into effect now,” Waterman stated.
In a noteworthy detail, one of the justices recused herself from the case due to her former law firm’s previous involvement with an abortion provider. With seven members in total, all of whom were appointed by Republican governors, five of them by Governor Reynolds herself, the Iowa Supreme Court issued its ruling.
Governor Reynolds expressed her disappointment with the court’s decision, emphasizing that it disregarded the will of Iowa voters who elected representatives committed to protecting the rights of unborn children. She also criticized the court for aligning with the opinion of a single judge in a single county, who invalidated Iowa’s legislation based on principles that have been explicitly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Reynolds affirmed that the battle is not yet concluded and indicated that her administration is exploring alternative options. While specific details were not provided, she hinted at the possibility of convening a special legislative session to introduce stricter abortion laws.
Given the substantial Republican majorities in both the state House and Senate, leaders from both chambers criticized the court’s ruling and indicated their intent to pursue the passage of new legislation on the matter.
Ruth Richardson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood North Central States, hailed the court’s decision as a significant victory. She stated that every individual should have autonomy over their own bodies, and the ruling affirms the rights of Iowans in this regard. Richardson emphasized that abortion bans only serve to increase the risks associated with pregnancy and that access to safe and legal abortion should not be dependent on one’s state of residence.
It is worth noting that while the state’s high court upheld the block on the law, it does not prevent Governor Reynolds and lawmakers from enacting a new law with similar provisions. The court’s decision on Friday was primarily based on procedural grounds, as the appeal made in 2022 regarding the 2019 ruling was deemed untimely.
In Iowa, abortion remains legal up to 20 weeks of pregnancy, allowing women access to the procedure within that timeframe.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and delegate authority over abortion to the states, many Republican-led states have taken significant measures to restrict access to abortion. This has resulted in severe limitations on abortion rights across the country.
Since the Dobbs ruling, courts have temporarily halted the enforcement of several abortion bans and restrictions to assess their compliance with state constitutions. Currently, six such measures are on hold, and while a few cases have reached final rulings, no clear trend has emerged regarding their outcomes.
In Arizona, a state appeals court ruled that an abortion ban predating its statehood does not apply to doctors, but whether it applies to other “helpers” is still subject to ongoing legal dispute. The South Carolina Supreme Court struck down a ban on abortions after cardiac activity can be detected, but the state has since adopted a new ban, which is currently under court-ordered suspension.
In other states, judges have deemed bans unconstitutional but in limited ways. Oklahoma’s highest court recently struck down two state laws banning abortion, but a different ban remains in effect, making abortion illegal in all stages of pregnancy with certain exceptions. In Idaho, one federal judge barred the enforcement of an abortion ban in medical emergencies, while another federal judge made the opposite ruling regarding a Texas state law.
In Iowa, Governor Reynolds signed a 2018 law restricting abortion, despite previous state and federal court decisions, including Roe, upholding a woman’s constitutional right to abortion. Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit, and a state judge blocked the law the following year. Reynolds did not appeal the decision at that time.
In a separate case, the Iowa Supreme Court, which has undergone significant conservative changes since the law was first passed, decided last year to reverse an opinion stating that the state constitution affirms a fundamental right to abortion. This decision was made a week before Roe was overturned, and Reynolds sought to dissolve the 2019 ruling.
Last year, a state judge ruled that Reynolds had no authority to dissolve the ruling, and Reynolds appealed to the state’s Supreme Court, where she had appointed five of the seven members. With Friday’s tied decision, the lower court ruling stands, but the high court’s opinions hold no further authority. Consequently, earlier rulings that applied the “undue burden test” for evaluating abortion laws remain in effect.
The “undue burden” standard is an intermediate level of scrutiny that requires laws not to create significant obstacles to abortion. State lawyers argued that the law should be analyzed using rational basis review, the lowest level of scrutiny for assessing legal challenges.
Justice Christopher McDonald, in his opinion supporting the reversal of the law, argued that denying the appeal and reinstatement of the law would curtail the legislative branch’s power. He further contended that substantial changes in the law warrant the dissolution of the 2019 ruling.
